Thursday, February 25

Ithaca, NY, is a university town. As such it's one of the more liberal cities in the state. And like so many cities in the northeast it has lots of heroin users.

As you probably know, heroin users occasionally misjudge how much they're shooting. An overdose can be fatal. In New York state, overdose deaths involving heroin and other opiates went from 186 in 2003 to 914 in 2012. (Note this is for the whole state, including huge NYC.)

“It's about keeping people alive, helping them
get treatment, helping them get better, but in the meantime making sure
that they live long enough to get that treatment,” Svante said. He then added--helpfully for his liberal listeners: “Once you die from an overdose there’s no opportunity to get
better, no opportunity to get treatment.”

The mayor said the facility would be staffed by nurses or physicians
who could quickly administer an antidote if a user overdoses. Addicts would also get clean syringes.

“It’s providing a safe place where they won’t overdose, where they
can get treatment,” Svante said. “We’re not going to encourage more
people to use, it’s just going to save lives and give them an
opportunity.”

Didja catch that last? "We're not going to encourage more people to use...." Really? Cuz if the liberal mayor is fine spending taxpayer dollars to provide staff to stand by to administer antidote in case of overdose, and clean needles, doesn't that remove a lot of the risk of heroin use?

Wouldn't that make using heroin more attractive? Accordingly, how is that *not* encouraging use?

Also, "everyone knows" that street smack is often cut with all manner of ghastly stuff, which increases the danger to the user. So if constituents buy the mayor's reasoning about making heroin use safe, if a client comes in without his own fix, doesn't the same logic argue for the clinic to sell him a pure dose? So now the city isn't just providing needles, but also...heroin.

Also, if a client comes in wanting a fix but without any money, wouldn't the same reasoning argue that the clinic should provide the fix at no charge? After all, if we've established that all poor people have a right to all the food they want, and free housing, and free medical care, how can liberals justify *not* giving users something they want even more than the previous three things?

Eh, probably nothing to be concerned about. After all, Vancouver has been running the same deal for a year or so and they're only serving 800 addicts a day, so what could go wrong?

Sunday, February 21

If Hillary and Bernie have virtually split the popular vote so far, why is the delegate count 502-70?

Many people have charged that the two major political parties are thoroughly, irredeemably corrupt. This argument has been used to explain why Republicans haven't managed to defeat a single proposal pushed by Obama despite winning majority control of both houses of congress.

If you're cynical that way, here's some ammunition: In the 4 primaries held so far, Hillary has won about 52% of the votes...yet somehow has racked up 502 delegates to 70 for Bernie Sanders.

The reason is a thing called "superdelegates"--a brilliant bit of subversion inserted in the party rules by party honchos years ago to keep fed-up voters from selecting a presidential candidate the party didn't want.

The party's nominee for president is chosen NOT by the people but by a majority of all the delegates to the party's convention. "Pledged" delegates are those selected by voters in the primary elections, and vote for the winner of that state's primary. But "superdelegates" aren't chosen by voters. Instead they're current and former party officials. Their vote count just as much as the pledged delegates when choosing the nominee, but unlike the "pledged" delegates chosen by voters in the primary election, superdelegates can vote for whoever they want.

In practice that means they vote the way the party tells 'em to, since to do otherwise would end one's political career.

When the parties first considered the idea of superdelegates, critics said the scheme was explicitly intended to allow party bigwigs to overrule primary voters if the party didn't like the candidate the voters chose. But party bigwigs hauled out pages of flowery, dense bafflegab, and perfumed, lofty gobblespeak, and that ended the debate.

Actually there wasn't any debate. Party insiders simply voted to approve the new rules, and that was that. So much for reassuring lies like "the people have spoken," eh?

So if you think your primary vote counts...well of course it does, citizen! Our nation was built on the Constitution, and the rule of law, and the idea that government should be limited. Of course all those principles have been totally killed in the last 7 years but the point is that you shouldn't spend a moment worrying about these "superb delegates" or whatever you say they're called. They're just people like you, and they'd never do anything undemocratic or anything like that!

Besides, you can trust your party officials to always act in your best interests--even if you don't realize it. Cuz they're like, totally smart and even more totally honest. They'd never take bribes to do things against your interest. Really.

The use of cops in Europe to ban things that might offend Muslims continues

Yep. The guy was attending a demonstration by Pegida, a group angry with European pols for their wholesale support of unlimited immigration from North Africa and the middle east. The cops insisted that the guy take off his hat. Guy reasonably asked "On what grounds do you demand that?" Cops: Pigs offend Muslims. We don't want you to offend Muslims, so you can't wear it!"

Understandably, the guy was less than impressed with this "reasoning." Also, there's no support anywhere in European law--YET--for the notion that offending Muslims is illegal. Although it should be quickly noted that Islamic groups in the U.N. are working feverishly to make that some sort of world law.

So...one more "unwritten rule" has joined the ridiculously long list that politicians in all nations are making, to make it illegal to criticize, parody or satirize Islam. Now they've de-facto banned the wearing of anything bearing the faintest resemblance to any part of a pig.

Here are some other examples of laws and police actions intended to penalize anyone who does or says anything remotely critical of Islam:

The speed with which your political leaders are surrending to Islam is nothing short of astonishing. If you'd tried to tell people a month after 9/11/2001 that within 15 years one could be arrested for wearing a furry pink pig hat in Europe because it might offend Muslims, folks would have thought you were completely bonkers. And yet here we are.

Thirty years ago Venezuela had the highest per-capita income in Latin
America. But for the last 20 years or so the country's economy has
been run into the ground by a socialist/(communist) government. Each
year that nation’s economic crisis has growing worse.

In
an open society that would be a clear signal that the leadership needed
to change course. But in the manner of all communist dictatorships,
being a de-facto emperor means never having to admit to making a bad
decision.

The astonishing low price of oil has hit all
exporting nations (and oil-producing states in the U.S.) hard, but
Venezuela--where oil accounts for 95
percent of the country’s export revenue--has been particularly
hard-hit. With oil prices around $30 per barrel, the country’s
resources are
draining fast.

Recently the country's socialist
president, Nicholas Maduro, made a five-hour televised address to the
country, in which he claimed the national oil company only took in $77 million for the central bank in January of this year--less than one-tenth of the $815
million earned in the same month last year--and down from $3 billion
in January 2014. Current oil revenue is less than 3 percent of what it was two years ago.

Between
socialist economic mismanagement and "regular" totalitarian blunders
the nation's GDP shrank 10 percent in 2015 and is forecast to fall by
another 8 percent this year.

In response to this crisis,
rather than loosen the iron grip of his party Maduro announced two
actions: He increased the price of gasoline sold inside Venezuela by
600 percent. And he devalued the already hammered currency by 60
percent.

The fuel price increase will bring in an extra $800 million per year. But Venezuela has $10 billion in maturing debt
this year and a rapidly shrinking ability to meet those obligations.
Inflation is expected to reach a staggering 720 percent this year.

So
why would any of this be relevant to you? Couple of reasons. First,
the huge drop in oil revenue--which, again, used to be the source of 95%
of the country's export earnings--makes it extremely unlikely that
Venezuela will be able to avoid some flavor of social upheaval. This is
dangerous to other countries because one of the things dictatorial
regimes reliably do when confronted with mutterings of revolution is to
blame all the nation's problems on a foreign conspiracy. Maduro and
his cronies have already been doing this, blaming both the U.S. and
neighboring Colombia for their economic problems.

Short answer: This increases the probability of at least some flavor of war.

But
a second lesson is likely of far greater significance to Americans:
Politicians rarely know much about economics, and socialists are worse
than most. One reason is that in their efforts to bribe the poor to
support them, they promise huge "freebies" or subsidies to the poor and
middle class, with virtually no thought as to the long-term costs and
effects on the economic picture. So now, when events throw a wrench
into the nation's budget, the rulers aren't willing to take away these
freebies--thus ensuring bankruptcy.

We have two such
candidates running for president here, today: Hillary and Sanders.
Both have promised the moon to their supporters. Sanders has promised
to make college "free" to anyone who wants it, and will more young
people liking "free" Hillary is starting to tack leftward to counter
Sanders.

Hard to imagine how this will play out if either Democrat is installed as president.

I'll bet not one of you heard about this before now--simply because it didn't make American news. (The link goes to the UK's Daily Mail.)

It didn't make our news because horrible things happen overseas every day, so the handful of the so-called media "elites" who decide what qualifies as "news" decided no American viewer needed to know about one particular rape in a foreign country. And that's not entirely unreasonable.

Unfortunately the New York or Washington editor's decision prevents you from seeing a critical pattern: The rapist invoked Allah to justify his attack.

This is important because by all indications most Muslim males overseas not only regard non-muslim women as fair game for rape, but also believe this is explicitly permitted by the Koran and their warped deity.

While it's certainly true that rapes are committed by men from virtually all cultures, I'm not aware of any other religion whose official doctrine explicitly permits rape.

The poor woman's testimony also reflects the mind-set of virtually all members of civilized societies: "I never thought something like that could happen to me. I just couldn't comprehend it."

Let those who have ears, hear.
By the way: A constant argument the Left uses to get you to go back to sleep regarding the threat posed by "zealous" Muslims is "We all worship the same god." Leaving aside the fact that a huge number of leftists don't even believe in God, people who do believe in the Judeo-Christian God can easily see that the god described by Mohammed is NOT the same being. The two are worlds apart.

Europe continues its death spiral

If the U.S. falls to Islam it won't be a military defeat, but rather because your political "leaders" will have surrendered.

Of course you think that's impossible--you can't imagine such a thing happening. So let me explain:

You've
heard an endless amount of blather from
politicians--Democrats--claiming that we need to pay more attention to
"international law." And that we need to be more "multicultural." This
is simply a ploy to enable sharia law to become established here in the
U.S.

Want to see what has already happened to ordinary
citizens of Europe? Watch the video below. An older woman living in
Calais, France, tells how life in her once-peaceful town has turned to utter shit because of
the "migrants"--the so-called "refugees" who beat and rape and steal and
demand everything from the government. This poor
woman can't even walk through her own town center.

You
probably think her story is fiction, a fabrication. That's because your
American media doesn't report what's happening all
over Europe. (To be accurate, they report it on page 8; it's technically there but very few people see it.)

You think this woman's story can't be true because you can't believe any people would put up with such blatant, naked aggression from foreigners.
But what you don't realize--because the media don't report this
either--is that politicians there have been prosecuting NOT aggressive invaders but local residents who try
to defend themselves, like with pepper spray. They're even prosecuting locals who simply speak out against govenment policies that have caused the deadly
invasion.

Why would any politician make such ghastly decisions--setting up policies and programs that would injure, intimidate or kill their own citizens? Because the pols are ALWAYS insulated from the consequences of their policies. Ordinary citizens suffer, while the people who created the policies live their luxurious lives serenely unaffected by the chaos they've caused.

And if you think it's not coming here you haven't been awake. Open borders equals death.

Look at the number of black-on-white murders and rapes and home invasions in the U.S. They're barely reported outside the city where they happened. The government and the mainstream media don't want you to know. Because you won't take any action if you don't know there's a problem.

Wake up! Wake the fuck up! Your country is
slipping away from you, just as their is. You can't rely on the
mainstream media to tell you the truth.

Monday, February 1

ISIS barbarity, part 496,934

According to a Kurdish news agency the monsters calling themselves "the Islamic state" beheaded a 14-year-old Syrian boy in the northern city of Jarablus after accusing him of apostasy. They accused him of...missing Friday prayers at the central mosque.

To behead a 14-year-old for missing prayers is beyond words--a crime against humanity. And it gets worse:The sharia court--run by ISIS--ordered that the boy be beheaded in public. And they forced his parents to watch as their son was beheaded.Such barbarity, such inhuman cruelty, is beyond words. It's hard to even imagine how the parents must have felt.But remember, citizen: This "incident" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

As we've all seen, when Islam migrates to, oh, Paris, or Brussels, or Sweden, or Denmark, or Germany, or, say, San Bernardino or Fort Hood its followers magically become, like, totally peaceful.Really. Trust us, citizen, because the emperor's hard-working, totally competent elites know these things. By contrast, if you think this totally unfortunate, isolated incident has anything to do with Islam you're stupid and a hater. Oh, and Islamophobic!

The power of trend lines in huge systems

Some parts of London are now almost 50 per cent Islamic. Soaring immigration and high birth rates have seen the number of Muslims in the UK double in a little over a decade. If current trends continue the areas could become majority Muslim within ten years.

One in four Muslims in England and Wales are under ten years old, indicating a very high birth rate within the
community.

The number of Muslims in the UK has more than tripled since 1991.

Of course you don't live in the UK, so why should this mean anything to you?

Because large population trends are like avalanches: they have a huge momentum--a power that can only be changed slowly, over a period of decades.

Okay, so why does that matter?

Ignoring the reality of Islamic terrorism--which only kills a few people each day--it's because once around half of the people in an area are Muslims, they demand that "their" areas comply with sharia law.

For those who haven't seen sharia in action, it often bans music (except the Islamic call to prayer) and alcohol, and deploys groups of thug males to surround and intimidate--or physically assault--women who wear clothes more revealing than a burqa.

You say you don't believe that? Consider that Muzz in London have actually printed and posted large signs in their areas saying "This is a sharia-controlled area" and listing what they demand you not do or wear or drink.

Strict adherents to sharia insist that women not leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative. How do you think it would affect you if your wife couldn't shop for groceries unless you were with her? How would it affect her getting to work if she uses public transit? Ready for that?

My liberal friends laugh at this scenario. "Ridiculous! Absurd! Just fear-mongering!" And my favorite: "Islamophobia!" That's because very few people understand what the trends of large systems mean. Huge systems take decades to change. Example: All civilized western nations are being out-bred by immigrants at least two-to-one. Even if that trend were to *start* changing today it would take many decades to drop to parity. Virtually all of Europe is likely to be majority-Muslim by 2100.

Think sharia wouldn't be too bad? Consider this: About 8 years ago a girls' school caught fire in some mid-east shit-hole. The girls began fleeing the burning building--and the local adult-male religious police forced them back inside because their hair wasn't covered. Most burned to death.

Are you willing to put up with that shit? If so, no problem as far as you're concerned. But do you think sharia might be terribly hard on your wife or daughter?

People who understand the power of trend lines in huge systems say "But what can us non-elites do? There's no way to solve this!" Actually I think there is, and without going to war. But I can say with absolute, utter certainty that it will not be solved if you continue to elect Democrats to run what remains of this nation.

About Me

Ex-AF pilot. While airliners are very safe, flying a single-pilot jet can be extremely demanding, especially in bad weather. It's a *huge* tribute to engineers that today's commercial jetliners are so amazingly safe!